TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Credit towards payment of duty in respect of inputs supplied to the appellants. 2. We heard Shri Naveen Mullick, Shri Kamaljeet Singh, and Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Advocates who appeared on behalf of different appellants. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants availed of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs received from the suppliers, that one of the supplier of inputs is M/s. Prerna Metal Industries; that the inquiries initiated against the said Prerna Metal Industry revealed that they had taken the Modvat credit on the strength of the invoices which were fake and bogus and were never issued to Ms. Prerna Metal Industry by any of the firms whose name were mentioned in the invoices; that the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to them. The payments are of substantial nature. It has not been clear from the show cause notice to whom the final product manufactured out of this material has been supplied or there was no material purchase at all. In view of the above it is evident that the buyers who had purchased material from Prerna Metal might have received the goods along with the statutory invoices of course without payment of duty." 3. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, also mentioned that the Commissioner has given specific finding that no evidence has been brought on record to suggest active involvement of the appellants in the fraud committed by Prerna Metal Inds.; that in view of this finding the Commissioner has not imposed any penalty on any of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf was not available to Prerna Metal Inds. the goods supplied to the Appellants by utilizing such credit becomes non-duty paid goods; that, therefore, the inputs were cleared by Prerna Metal Inds. without payment of duty and accordingly no credit can be availed of by the Appellants as no duty has been paid. She also mentioned that the Commissioner has also dealt with the aspect as to whether the demand of duty from Prerna Metal as well as from the appellant would amount to double demand; that the Commissioner has given his specific finding that no duty had been paid by Prerna Metal on the goods cleared, and therefore, the duty demanded from Prerna Metal cannot be allowed as Modvat credit to the buyers who had purchased material from Prerna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice was issued, provided for the recovery of Credit taken on account of error, omission or misconstruction on the part of officer or manufacturer or an assessee. As far as the appellants are concerned there was neither any error nor any misconstruction on their part. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned SDR that larger period of limitation will be invokable irrespective of the fact that fraud has not been committed by the appellants. It is evident from the impugned Order that the appellants have not committed any fraud, suppression, or wilful mis-statement as the Commissioner has given specific finding that no evidence has been brought on record to suggest active involvement of the appellants. Rule 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
